mobility management: state of the states report - utc.uic.edu · state to compile information of...

March 2019

Mobility Management: State of the States Report

2 Mobility Management: State of the States Report

Prepared by: The Urban Transportation Center at the University of Illinois - Chicago

Primary authors: P.S. Sriraj, PhD, Director, Urban Transportation Center at UIC Em Hall, PhD Student, UIC College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs Michael McCarthy, MUPP Student, UIC College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs Lise Dirks, Senior Associate, Urban Transportation Center at UIC

For questions about this report, please contact Judy Shanley, Ph.D. at Easterseals, NCMM Co-Director: [email protected]

About the National Center for Mobility Management (NCMM) The National Center for Mobility Management is a national technical assistance center funded through a cooperative agreement with the Federal Transit Administration, and operated through a consortium of three national organizations—the American Public Transportation Association, the Community Transportation Association of America, and Easterseals Inc. The mission of the Center is to promote customer-centered mobility strategies that advance good health, economic vitality, self-sufficiency, and community.

About the Urban Transportation Center (UTC)

The Urban Transportation Center (UTC) is a research unit dedicated to innovative transportation research and education that provides technical assistance on urban transportation planning, policy, operations, finance and management. Part of the College of Urban Planning & Public Affairs at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), the UTC is a nationally-recognized innovator in research, education and engagement that benefits transportation networks in cities and metropolitan areas across America.


Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................. 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 5

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 7

LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................................................................... 8

DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 15

METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................................... 17

RESPONSE RATE ...................................................................................................................................... 19

FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................................................... 21

Performance Management ..................................................................................................................... 26

Internal and External Activities ............................................................................................................... 27

Challenges and Successes ....................................................................................................................... 29

CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 31

NEXT STEPS ................................................................................................................................................. 32

APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................................................. 33

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 36


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was completed through funding provided by the Federal Transit Administration

(FTA) and the National Center for Mobility Management. The research team would like to thank

transportation officials from statewide mobility management programs across the country for

their participation in interviews with the research team. The views within this document are

those of the authors alone.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Mobility management is designed to respond to the individual needs of each rider, regardless

of where they live or how they choose to get around. Mobility management networks are

networks that are designed to improve the overall mobility overall for any given trip, regardless

of the rider characteristics, mode, or geography. Mobility management thrives when there is a

coordinated effort and combining of assets among private organizations and public agencies, all

working together in pursuit of better service delivery at lower costs. This report terms it as

mobility management networks. While these networks exist around the country, there is not a

lot known about their role, their influence in providing mobility as a service (MaaS), or their

ability in affecting mobility of individuals. It is the objective of this report to shed light on these

mobility management networks at the state level with the help of an electronic survey of state

mobility managers and affiliated stakeholders.

The survey was sent to 49 transportation professionals, each representing a different state.

Thirty-five names on the list were provided by the National Center for Mobility Management,

and 14 names were provided by the UIC research team; Participants were recruited via emails

sent by P.S. Sriraj, with follow-up correspondence from Judy Shanley. All participants in this

study were volunteers.

Out of 49 surveys sent, 28 were opened and 21 were completed. Two states responded directly

to NCMM that their state did not have a statewide network; for the purposes of this research

they are recorded as having received and completed the survey.

The results indicate that the statewide mobility management networks have a strong public

transit component. Almost all those that responded, indicated that the networks in their

respective states are either led by associations of public transit agencies, or are led by the

public transit department within their state DOT.

Nine of the 14 responding statewide networks were established through governor's initiatives

and executive orders or through state legislation. All of these states have or have had State


Coordinating Committees, five of which are currently active and four currently inactive. Eight of

the 14 respondents name the state Department of Transportation as the lead or co-leading

agency for their statewide mobility management network. Funding and affiliated networks for

these agencies reflect the state DOT leadership. All of these agencies cite state DOT and/or

Federal funds passed through the state DOT as their funding source. Five of the eight DOT-led

network representatives identified funding through the Section 5310 Program. Additionally,

one mentioned Section 5311 and another listed the Rural Transit Assistance Program as funding

sources. A majority of the respondents indicated not having formal performance measurement

systems for gauging their network’s performance. As for the internal and external activities of

the networks, the most common internal activity seems to be convening meetings, and other

network-related communications. The most common external activity seems to be developing

information packets for dissemination to other stakeholders.

The challenges facing these mobility management networks can be classified into the following

types: coordination at various geographic levels; securing adequate funding and ensuring that

funders perceive that their dollars are well spent; performance/outcome measurement of the

impact of the network(s); and onboarding and training of mobility management professionals.

It is in this context the comment from the network managers that they would like to learn from

and share “success stories” of mobility networks to other states and agencies assumes

significance. This report and derivatives of this report can be used to help mobility managers

embark on continuous learning that benefits all which will potentially help them overcome

some of the above-mentioned challenges.


INTRODUCTION

Mobility improvement is becoming the goal of many transportation systems and agencies as

new technologies and new ways of traveling emerge and individual preferences to trips evolve.

Mobility improvement often times is plagued by lack of continuity and communication between

services and between stakeholders. As the discussion in the transportation sector moves from

improving ridership for specific services, or reducing congestion and on to mobility

management, the role of mobility management networks, which facilitate mobility

management with the goal of providing Mobility as a Service (MaaS) becomes very intrinsic and

central. While these networks seemingly have an important role to play, not much is known

about their structure and functionality around the various states of the country.

These networks can provide a useful lens through which to view comprehensive transportation

coordination efforts that emphasize the needs of disadvantaged riders, while simultaneously

improving services for all riders. The goal of this phase of research is to collect and analyze the

organizational structure, day-to-day operations, best practices, and challenges inherent to

mobility management networks and the individuals who take part in them, either as leaders or

participants. This information will shed light on several aspects of these networks including but

not limited to their structure, and activities at the state level. The information is collected in

two ways: (1) an electronic survey of network managers in each state; and (2) a scan of each

state to compile information of the existing mobility mechanisms and services.

This report presents these findings in two ways: a narrative overview and state profiles that

combine demographic information with survey findings. The report concludes with a set of

recommendations for transportation professionals interested in improving existing or

implementing new statewide mobility management networks as well as understanding barriers

to the formation and sustainability of these networks at the state level.


LITERATURE REVIEW

The concept of mobility management embraces a wide scope of programs and services. For the

purposes of this report, special attention is paid to research that addresses mobility

management practices and programs designed to emphasize the coordination of transportation

services for people with disabilities, seniors, and other transit-dependent populations.

Mobility management is designed to respond to the individual needs of each rider, regardless

of where they live or how they choose to get around (Burkhardt & McLary, n.d., pg. 1).

Mobility management networks are networks that are designed to improve overall mobility for

any given trip, regardless of the rider characteristics, mode, or geography. From isolated rural

areas with no public transportation options to large urban areas with complex, multi-modal

networks, no area is too large or too small to benefit from increased coordination of

transportation services, according to proponents and practitioners of mobility management

(Burkhardt & McLary, n.d.; Majumdar, Sen, Highsmith, & Cherrington, 2013; Mattson et al.,

2017). Mobility management also recognizes that riders often use multiple types of

transportation throughout their travels (Ellis, 2009, pgs. 3, 5) and, accordingly, seeks to create a

seamless, multi-modal experience for all riders, a trend in the overall transportation sector that

is being fueled by the rise of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and Mobility as a Service

(MaaS) applications (U.S. Dept. of Transportation, 2011, pgs. 3-4; Jittrapirom, Caiati, Feneri,

Ebrahimigharehbaghi, Alonso-González, & Narayan, 2017, pg. 15).

Mobility management thrives when there is a coordinated effort and combining of assets

among private organizations and public agencies, all working together in pursuit of better

service delivery at lower costs (Mattson et al., 2017, 78; Majumdar, 2012, pg. 267). We call this

a mobility management network. While end-users report improved transportation service

delivery via mobility management (Mattson et al., 88), the complex nature of these networks

complicates measuring performance in an agreed-upon, consistent manner. As a result,

individual states use varying means to measure performance at the network level, including

traditional (that is, those measurements already in use by public transit agencies), FTA-provided


criteria, regionally designed criteria, or a combination thereof (Majumdar et al., 2013, pgs. 288-

289). To remedy this, Mattson et al. call for a “more robust evaluation framework” that is

focused on strategic outcomes that grow out of an agreed-upon set of terminology and

methods (2017, pgs. 79-80). At the end user level, measurement is somewhat more

straightforward: surveys are one tool that is used consistently and effectively (Majumdar et al.,

2012, pg. 267; Friedman & Rizzolo, 2016; Mattson et al., 2017, pg. 81). It is worth noting that

any state-level assessment of mobility management must take into account the differences

between urban and rural riders and networks (Majumdar et al., 2013, pgs. 292-294; KFH Group,

Inc. 2018).

While aspects of mobility management have been informally implemented by the human

service sector for decades, formal mobility management networks have been in existence in the

US for just over a decade (Mattson, Miller, Goodwill, Sriraj, & Hough, 2017, pg. 78). Executive

Order 13330 established the Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility (CCAM), a federal

interagency charged with coordinating federal funding programs that focused on a “special

population, which included the elderly, disadvantaged, and lower income individuals,” in 2004

(Mujamdar, Sen, & Park, 2012, pg. 266). In 2005, Congress passed the Safe, Accountable,

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), which included

mobility management as an eligible capital cost under the Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and

Individuals with Disabilities (Section 5310), Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC), and New

Freedom programs (Ellis, 2009, pgs. 2-3; “Mobility management,” 2007).

In 2007, CCAM created the United We Ride initiative for the purpose of addressing the

fragmented nature of transportation service delivery to clients served by human service

organizations; however, the original intent of that initiative can be observed in mobility

management programs at the state, regional, and local levels, as the profiles in this report

demonstrate (“United We Ride,” 2007). In 2013, the JARC and New Freedom programs were

eliminated and folded into Section 5310 (“Job Access Reverse Commute / New Freedom /

Section 5310,” n.d.). At the federal level, FTA has brought many of the synergistic activities to


mobility management by recommending the development of statewide transportation

coordination plans, as well as the identification of cost-sharing opportunities to leverage the 80

federally funded transportation programs to improve overall mobility. The 80 funding

programs emanate from different federal departments including but not limited to Department

of Health and Human Services, Department of Labor, Department of Energy, Department of

Justice, etc. The varied and diverse nature of the constituencies that these federal departments

strive to serve, means that the intersection of transportation and these other

departmental/programmatic objectives does not happen symbiotically. It becomes essential

for a dedicated entity to exploit the synergies to improve overall mobility for a region or a state.

This could be served by mobility managers and mobility management networks.

For a mobility manager or a network to be successful, it is important to understand the

landscape of the various stakeholder groups that are involved in improving mobility for specific

constituent groups.

These stakeholders include the riders, and those public agencies and private entities that

provide the transportation services. While mobility managers have been somewhat successful

in identifying the needs of their target audience, the success has not necessarily translated

across population groups and the silo-based approach to mobility management has been

unable to overcome systemic deficiencies. It is in this context that mobility management

networks have assumed significance.

Mobility management networks focus on improving the partnerships with and among service

providers – usually in the form of human service or social service organizations (the terms are

usually used interchangeably) and the presence of a dedicated mobility management

coordinator. Unlike human service transportation coordinators, who are often constrained by

geography and therefore limited in the service areas they can cover, mobility management

coordinators can marshal the resources needed to partner across transportation agencies and

geographic areas, providing a broader network of coverage for riders (Mattson et al., 2017, pg.

78). In addition, mobility management coordinators often play in shaping policy that affects


riders and members of the network (Mattson et al., 2017, pg. 78; Burkhardt & McLary, n.d., pg.

1.). These policy improvements do not operate in isolation; to the contrary, policies advocated

by mobility management professionals can have a positive spillover effect to the broader

ridership. As one example, Haveman, Tillmann, Stöppler, Kvas, & Monninger have developed a

“social-ecological model of mobility and traffic participation” for individuals with intellectual

disabilities (ID) that emphasizes that public transit riders with ID’s social and physical

environments can be greatly improved when supported by policies designed to improve

mobility and accessibility for all riders (2013, pgs. 290-291).

Although all riders can stand to benefit from effective mobility management practices, it is

those special populations of people with disabilities, the elderly, low-income individuals,

transit-dependent, or otherwise disadvantaged riders who stand to gain the most. Riders with

disabilities and aging riders, especially, face barriers to using public transportation, causing

them to miss out on employment and community integration opportunities (Clarke, Ailshire, &

Lantz, 2009, pg. 1675; (Sze & Christensen, 2017, pg 67; U.S. Dept. of Transportation, 2002).

According to the 2002 National Transportation Availability and Use Survey, nearly 23% of riders

with disabilities require specialized assistance or equipment to travel outside the home, while

less than 1% of non-disabled riders do. (U.S. Dept. of Transportation, 2002). Riders with

disabilities have difficulty getting the transportation they need at nearly four times the rate of

non-disabled riders. (U.S. Dept. of Transportation, 2002). These barriers are even more

pronounced in rural areas, where infrequent or unreliable paratransit services are the only form

of transportation available (KFH Group, Inc., 2018, pg. 1; Sylvestre et al., 2007, pg. 27). Surveys

of riders with disabilities consistently demonstrate that availability of accessible transportation

options improves quality of life and decreases social isolation (Sze & Christensen, 2017, pg 67;

Mattson et al., 2017; Sylvestre, Gaudry, & Christopher, 2007; Clarke, Ailshire, & Lantz, 2009;

Jansuwan, Christensen, & Chen, 2013).

The Need


With the rapid advancements in technology in the delivery of public transportation services,

why do we continue to need mobility management? Why go to the trouble to create

coordinated networks when seemingly any type of transportation option can be made available

easily with the advances in technology? Four reasons emerge from the literature: the still-

significant barriers to the use of public transportation for disabled, elderly, and other

disadvantaged riders; the limited public transit options for disadvantaged rural riders; the lack

of integration among modes of transportation in urban areas, resulting in service gaps, despite

the increased availability of new technologies such as MaaS; and the capacity of mobility

management coordinators to shape policy that can increase the cost and efficiency of public

transportation for all riders.

For disadvantaged riders, statewide networks or coordinating councils can build a network of

collaborators that have the capacity to engage state-level leaders – legislators, the governor -

around shared goals of equitable access to transportation, and by extension improved quality

of life, for all riders (Farber & Reed, pg. 4; Bond, Brown, & Wood, 2017, pg. 711). At least one

state, Wisconsin, has implemented a statewide mobility management program in large part to

serve the needs of those riders covered under Section 5310 (Wisconsin Department of

Transportation, Bureau of Transit, Local Roads, Railroads and Harbors, 2015). While statewide efforts

such as this have been studied by academics and agencies alike, less is known about the

experiences of the end users; this is a topic ripe for further research (Mattson et al., 2017, pg.

84).

Disadvantaged rural riders, particularly older adults, face additional mobility barriers in the

form of larger distances between activity sites and fewer public transportation options as

private automobile travel became the preferred mode of choice (Pucher & Renne, 2005, pg.

171; Kostyniuk, St. Louis, Zanier, Eby, & Molnar, 2012, pgs. 304; Majumdar et al., 2014, pg.

283). Additionally, many rural households are reliant on cars as their primary form of

transportation. When older adults are no longer able to drive, or a household cannot afford to

purchase a car, individuals are further disadvantaged (Pucher & Renne, 2005, pg. 168;


Kerschner, 2006 as cited in Wood, Brown, Bond, & Suguri, 2016, pg. 155). One survey of 40

agency administrators serving older adults living in rural and small communities found that local

governments were slightly more likely than state governments to partner in the delivery of

transportation services (20 versus 16), but the impact and outcomes of building local versus

state partnerships was not explored (Wood et al., 2016, pg. 160). This suggests that while

state-level partnerships are valuable in the delivery of rural mobility programs – they were the

second most frequently cited among all types of partnerships – the specific advantages of state-

level government partnerships requires further exploration.

Elimination of service gaps and increased integration among modes in public transportation,

including paratransit, are cited in the literature as significant issues that affect disadvantaged

riders (Myers & Ravensloot, 2016, pgs. 79-81; Bezyak, Sabella, & Gattis, 2017, pg. 53). Mobility

management networks, however, have been shown to mitigate these challenges (Federal

Transportation Administration, 2007; Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Bureau of

Transit, Local Roads, Railroads and Harbors, 2015, pg. 4). Indeed, areas rural and urban alike

still lack seamless integration among varying modes of transit, and these gaps can take a variety

of forms, including geographic, time-of-day, and accessibility for those with physical or

developmental disabilities, or who otherwise require additional assistance to navigate public

transportation (Federal Transportation Administration, 2007; Bond et al., 2017, pg. 708;

Friedman and Rizzolo, 2016, pgs. 169-170). Majumdar et al. suggest that a decrease in service

gaps as measured by a decrease in the percentage of the population living in “unserved” areas

is one outcome measure that could be incorporated into state-level mobility management

performance measures (2014, pg. 296).

Although less prevalent in the literature, the role of mobility management coordinators in

collaborating with state-level policymakers is an important emerging topic. Coordinators, for

example, might serve as skilled intermediaries between human services providers and state

legislators by translating local transit or land-use needs into meaningful statewide policies

(Federal Transportation Administration, 2007). Because they are able to monitor mobility


management programs at various levels (community-wide, regional, etc.) statewide

coordinators can also play a role in establishing partnerships and programs that transcend

geographic boundaries (Mattson et al., 2017, pg., 78). These types of partnerships in turn can

help bridge the urban/rural divide, as well as offer solutions for service delivery gaps.

The Ideal Network

Mobility management networks are often virtual networks. There may be no physical markers

of their presence, and they are heavily dependent on the willingness of disparate actors and

agencies to partner and collaborate for the greater good in both informal and formal ways.

They are complex entities that rely on varying and sometimes intermittent funding availability

in order to carry out their function. Although mobility management programs and services vary

widely in how they operate depending on geographic location, service area, and funding

sources, there are certain aspects that are consistent across all mobility management networks

that successfully fulfill their mission. Schlossberg, adapting concepts presented by Mattessich

& Monsey’s in their 1992 book Collaboration: What Makes It Work, argues for a three-tiered

approach to transportation coordination for disadvantaged populations:

Figure 1. Factors That Facilitate Coordination in Mobility Management Networks

PrimaryCoordinator at the state levelStrategic collaboration with other agencies and initiatives (could be at local, regional, state, or federal level)Effective communication among network leaders and members

SecondaryTechnical expertise valued by member agencies and shared in timely and relevant waysFavorable policy climateUse of performance measures for continuous quality improvementSufficient funding and/or volunteer capacity

TertiaryMembers see collaboration as in the best interest of usersPositive relationship with state DOT (past or present)Targeted state-level legislationIncreased awareness for purposes of recruiting more network members


DEFINITIONS

Prior to the start of this research, the research team, with the support of Easterseals, an NCMM

partner, agreed upon consistent definitions of the terminology used in data collection and

reporting. The following section defines the terminology and describes the research approach

used in this study. Mobility management is an approach to designing and delivering

transportation services that starts and ends with the customer. It begins with a community

vision in which the entire mobility network—public transit, private operators, cycling and

walking, volunteer drivers, and others—works together with customers, planners, and

stakeholders to deliver the mobility options that best meet the community's needs.

Mobility management:

• encourages innovation and flexibility to reach the "right fit" solution for customers

• plans for sustainability

• strives for easy information and referral to assist customers in learning about and using

services

• continually incorporates customer feedback as services are evaluated and adjusted

A Mobility Management Network is comprised of the agencies, organizations, and/or

participants who lead efforts to improve integration across mobility options; make public and

private transit more attractive and easier to use, especially for people with disabilities; identify

innovative solutions; as well as reduce and re-distribute travel demand to help unlock the

capacity of transport systems.

Table 1. Definitions of Mobility Management

Definition Reference Mobility management focuses on meeting individual customer needs through a wide range of transportation options and service providers. It also focuses on coordinating these services and providers in order to achieve a more efficient service delivery.

United We Ride 2007a, as quoted in Mattson et al., 2017, pg. 78.


Mobility management uses a customer-driven, market-based approach to make public transportation services more effective for customers and cost-efficient for taxpayers (Edwards, 1980).

Edwards, 1980, as quoted in Majumdar et al., 2014, pg. 281.

Mobility management includes (1) all activities involved with identifying customer travel needs and coordinating a variety of service providers to address those needs — and doing so in a manner that is effective for the customer and efficient for the taxpayer. It also involves (2) efforts to improve the performance of public transportation in conjunction with the management of community-wide transportation resources, thus including traffic management strategies and the coordination of public transportation with infrastructure development and land use policies.

Burkhardt & McLary, n.d., pg. 1.

Mobility management is an innovative approach for managing and delivering coordinated transportation services to customers, including older adults, people with disabilities, and individuals with lower incomes. Changes in demographics, shifts in land use patterns, and the creation of new and different job markets require new approaches for providing transportation services, particularly for customers with special needs. Mobility management focuses on meeting individual customer needs through a wide range of transportation options and service providers. It also focuses on coordinating these services and providers in order to achieve a more efficient transportation service delivery system for public policy makers and taxpayers who underwrite the cost of service delivery.

Federal Transit Administration

Mobility Management seeks to create and coordinate a full range of well synchronized mobility services within a community—“a one-stop shop for mobility options,” according to one public transit agency general manager. It begins with the development of partnerships among transportation providers in a particular region, expanding the range of viable choices. When implemented, mobility management moves public transit agencies toward a more collaborative role in the overall transportation picture.

American Public Transportation Association

Mobility management projects are short-range planning, training, and management activities for improving coordination among public transportation and other transportation service providers, including human service agencies and private providers. These projects build coordination among existing public transportation providers and other transportation service providers, and increase service options that would not otherwise be available for seniors and individuals with disabilities.

Oregon Department of Transportation


METHODOLOGY

Participants

Participants in this research included 49 transportation professionals, each representing a

different state. Thirty-five names on the list were provided by the National Center for Mobility

Management, and 14 names were provided by the UIC research team; no contact could be

identified for the state of Wyoming. Participants were recruited via emails sent by P.S. Sriraj,

with follow-up correspondence from Judy Shanley. All participants in this study were

volunteers.

Materials

All participants signed an informed consent form, which contained information about the

purpose of the study, who was conducting it, and how the data collected would be used.

Additional materials included a web-based survey (see Appendix A) and the “Informed

Consent” required by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at UIC.

Design and Procedure

The research team identified the potential survey respondents through a combination of

approaches: locating examples of mobility management networks via web searches and

identification of participants by NCMM/Easterseals. Researchers maintained a spreadsheet of

the subjects that associate the email addresses and phone numbers with the name of the

agency. This data is not sensitive because many agencies post their contact information on

publicly-accessible websites. The researchers will store this spreadsheet in a shared folder on

the University-provided Box.com service. Box.com encrypts data in transit and in storage and

the folder is shared only among the named researchers. This spreadsheet will be separated

from survey responses and interview notes, although researchers with access to both sets of

data will be able to associate data with the respondent’s personal information. It is necessary to

store these identifiers to facilitate phone interviews based on the survey responses. This list

was also shared with the FTA for their feedback before the potential participants were

contacted.


Researchers then contacted a staff member or leader of the government agency, service

provider, or other organization that facilitates the mobility management network as a Network

Leader via email. This email message informed subjects about the research being conducted

and their rights to decline to participate. A link to the web-based survey was included in that

email. The research in this report represents part one of a two-part data collection approach:

(1) an online survey of every individual/agency identified above. It is anticipated that this online

survey will then be followed by a (2) phone interview of a subset of the respondents to the

online survey in the next phase of this project.

Because of the use of human subjects, this research was submitted to the Institutional Review

Board (IRB) for "Exempt Review," defined as follows: "When it is determined that the

involvement of human subjects is in one of the six exempt categories listed in the Regulations

[45 CFR 46.101(b)], it is exempt. The exempt categories include certain educational practices

and tests, innocuous surveys of adults, study of existing data, public service programs and food

evaluations. Any research study involving human subjects thought to be exempt must be

submitted to the OPRS for an exemption determination. Exemption review is performed by

senior OPRS staff and designated IRB members." The research team submitted a Claim of

Exemption and Research Protocol, as well as informed consent language, as part of the IRB

application. The research team's request for an exempt review was granted by IRB. The specific

exemption category under 45 CFR 46.101(b) is: 2.

The survey was designed such that the respondents would be presented an informed consent

form/language (see Appendix B “Informed Consent for Web Survey”) at the outset, as required

by the IRB. The intent was that the respondents who did not provide consent would exit the

survey, while those who consented would proceed to respond to the questions in the survey;

however, all respondents gave consent.

The online survey instrument is structured to include questions in the multiple-choice/short

answer format. The data are coded and identified by the name of the agency and not by the


name of the individual responding to the survey. Respondents spent an average of seven

minutes and 50 seconds completing the survey.

The online survey was conducted using the University-provided Qualtrics service. When the

survey concluded, the data was exported and stored on the University-provided Box.com

service, where the data is encrypted, and only the researchers had access to it. Survey data will

be deleted from Qualtrics at the conclusion of this research.

RESPONSE RATE

Out of 49 surveys sent, 28 were opened and 21 were completed. Two states responded directly

to NCMM that their state did not have a statewide network; for the purposes of this research

they are recorded as having received and completed the survey. This information is

summarized in Tables 2 and 3.

Table 2. Survey Response Rate

Count Percent Surveys Sent 49 100% Responses 30* 59% Completed Surveys 21 43% Incomplete 7 16%

*includes two responses sent via email to NCMM

Table 3. Frequency of Statewide Networks

Count Percent Has Statewide Network 14 67% No Statewide Network 6 29% I Don't Know 1 5%

The 14 respondents who answered “Yes” to Question 2 proceeded to answer the remaining

questions. The states represented in this group of 14 are Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa,

Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio,

Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.


Figure 2. Map of networks by region


FINDINGS

Respondents were asked about their state’s network, including geographic scale, the name of

the network, which agency leads it, the legal or regulatory authority for establishing this

network, and how the network is funded. This information is summarized in Table 4.

The statewide mobility management networks have a strong public transit component. Almost

all those that responded, indicated that the networks in their respective states are either led by

associations of public transit agencies, or are led by the public transit department within their

state DOT. Two exceptions are the New Hampshire Mobility Management Network and the

Wisconsin Association of Mobility Managers. The New Hampshire network consists of

community transportation services provided by volunteer drivers and led by Easter Seals. This

program functions within the State Coordinating Council for Community Transportation, which

engages with public and human service transportation providers in their statewide coordination

and mobility management efforts. The other exception, the Wisconsin Association of Mobility

Managers emerged from an intensive training program begun by the Wisconsin Department of

Transportation, and currently offers training and a certificate program, advocacy and seminars

to promote professional development for mobility managers. Members include human service

transportation providers, public transit providers, veteran organizations, senior service

providers and independent living centers, among others.

Nine of the 14 responding statewide networks were established through governor's initiatives

and executive orders or through state legislation. All of these states have or have had State

Coordinating Committees, five of which are currently active and four currently inactive. The

three of the five states without a legislative or governor's mandate are led and funded through

their state Department of Transportation. Eight of the 14 respondents name the state

Department of Transportation as the lead or co-leading agency for their statewide mobility

management network. Funding and affiliated networks for these agencies reflect the state DOT

leadership. All of these agencies cite state DOT and/or Federal funds passed through the state

DOT as their funding source. Five of the eight DOT-led network representatives identified


funding through the Section 5310 Program. Additionally, one mentioned Section 5311 and

another listed the Rural Transit Assistance Program as funding sources.

Of the six respondents not naming state DOT leaders, three are led by state transit associations,

and a fourth is led by a state public transit authority. The four public transit networks all include

self-funding by agencies, and one of these also receives Federal funds passed through the state

DOT and RTAP funding. The two networks not led by the state DOT or by public transit

associations are New Hampshire and Wisconsin, described above. Wisconsin also cites self-

funding by agencies as the funding source for the network.

Table 4: States That Have a Statewide Network State Geographic

Scale Name of Network

Lead Agency Establishing Authority

Funding Sources

Arizona Other (The entire state)

Arizona Department of Transportation MPD Transit

Other (ADOT policy)

State Department of Transportation (DOT) funds; Federal funds through the State DOT (5310)

Colorado Small Urban (50,000 to 200,000)

CASTA/ DRMAC Other Federal funds through the State DOT (RTAP) Network members and their organizations support themselves

Connecticut large, small and rural

None DOT, department of public transportation

49 U.S.C. 5310 Federal funds through the State DOT (5310)


Iowa Other Iowa Mobility Management Network (IMMN)

Iowa DOT Office of Public Transit

Other (grassroots effort)

Federal funds through the State DOT (JARC, New Freedom, 5310); Network members and their organizations support themselves

Maine Mixture of rural and urban

State Coordinating Council for Community Transportation

MaineDOT is leading the charge

None Other

Massachusetts Other MassMobility initiative (out of Health & Human Services), in partnership with state DOT

Other (informal - there was previously an executive order as well)

Other (Funding from health & human services plus federal 5310 funds through state DOT)

Michigan Statewide Michigan Mobility Managers

Michigan Transportation Connection

N/A Network members and their organizations support themselves

Nebraska It is a statewide project that includes all of the above

no name, 5310 funds five mobility managers

Nebraska Department of Transportation

No legal or regulatory authority

State Department of Transportation (DOT) funds; Federal funds through the State DOT

Nevada Rural (< 50,000)

Nevada Department of Transportation

Other (Nevada DOT Transit Section)

Federal funds through the State DOT (5311)


New Hampshire

Statewide State Coordinating Council for Community Transportation

Easter Seals, Special Transit Services

Legislation Other

North Carolina Other (Statewide, Rural and Urban)

NC MOVE The North Carolina Public Transportation Association

Other Network members and their organizations support themselves

Ohio Rural (< 50,000)

Mobility Managers

The Ohio Department of Transportation

Legislation State Department of Transportation (DOT) funds; Federal funds through the State DOT (5310)

Rhode Island Large Urban (> 200,000)

RI Statewide Coordinating Council

RIPTA Legislation Network members and their organizations support themselves

Wisconsin Combination of all (large, small, and rural)

Wisconsin Association of Mobility Management

Non-profit Association

Volunteer Non-profit

Network members and their organizations support themselves

Source: Questions 5, 7-9, and 11, Mobility Management State of the States Survey

This raises the issue as to how the statewide networks manage their resources. For those

formed by public transit associations with self-funding agencies, state-level activities may be

funded by pooled resources and/or agencies may be funding their own agency-level mobility

management strategies. Statewide networks led and funded by state DOTs may have an easier

time financing broader mobility management strategies, but the question remains as to how


the individual needs of participants are met. These issues will be addressed in the planned

phone interviews.

With regard to size, networks are composed of varying numbers of participants (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Number of network participants

Source: Question 3, Mobility Management State of the States Survey

Nine of the 14 network respondents stated that their participants also are affiliated with Aging

and Disability networks; eight of the 14 stated that they are affiliated with RTAP grantee

networks, and eight are affiliated with Section 5310 Grantee networks. Two specifically cited

Area Agency on Aging as affiliated networks. Of the six respondents not naming state DOT

leadership, all cited affiliations with RTAP and Aging and Disability networks and five cited the

Section 5310 Program Grantee network as an affiliated network. Wisconsin also cited

Independent living centers, community action plans, interfaith associations and WETAP as

affiliates.

The affiliated networks listed by respondents represent the primary interests of the

participants. Participants are public transit providers and human service transportation

providers, with a particular focus on rural transit, seniors and persons with disabilities. These

are also the providers who have been most closely associated with coordination efforts. The

13.33%

20.00%

66.67%

How many organizations and/or agencies participate in the network?

Less than 5 Between 5 and 10 Greater than 10


establishment of these programs and networks follows from the federal mandate for

coordinated transportation and for state DOTs to implement coordinated Human Service

Transportation Plans. A shift in focus on mobility management is a natural progression of focus

from coordinated services to improving market access to services. The implementation of

mobility management strategies in response to federal initiatives is reflected in the survey

results. Eight of the 14 respondents affirmed that their networks were similarly aligned with the

Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility.

Performance Management

Five of 14 respondents had documented methods for measuring individual performance of

mobility management professionals within their network. Common measurements include

monthly or quarterly reporting on the number of meetings and trainings held and/or attended,

the number of individuals who participate in meetings and/or trainings, the number of

referrals, and the number of individuals served. Some ways that marketing efforts are

measured include website analytics and the number of collateral materials distributed. Persons

with disabilities, older adults, and veterans are specific groups whose participation is tracked.

One respondent noted the opportunity to share “success stories” in the notes section of

mobility managers’ monthly reports, indicating a desire to share among the network and learn

from those efforts that yield positive outcomes. In this instance, the statewide coordinator

tracks each report against the network’s six strategies and their accompanying goals, providing

follow-up as necessary.

Only one network – Connecticut’s – identified a means of measuring the performances of the

network as a whole, via quarterly meetings among the five mobility managers on staff. While

nine of the respondents were able to articulate the mission for their network (see State

Profiles), only Connecticut indicated any strategic planning activity, with each of their five

mobility managers developing their own missions and strategic plans. Two other networks

indicated that they were in the process of articulating their missions.


Internal and External Activities

Communication is key to coordination, and the networks employ a variety of tools in pursuit of

this goal. All of the statewide mobility management networks engage in a variety of internal

and external activities that include hosting events, webinars, providing training, offering

support for grant programs such as Section 5310, 5311, and RTAP, advocacy and lobbying, etc.,

at frequencies varying from once a week to once a year or greater. Two networks report using

websites or online forums for communication purposes, and one network publishes a monthly

newsletter. Rhode Island reported holding internal meetings, calls, and/or webinars as their

only activity. See Figures 4 and 5 for additional detail on the types of activities across networks.


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Holding internal meetings, calls, and/or webinars

Conducting training and/or professional development forstaff or network participants

Holding network-only events

Providing technical assistance within the network

Providing or assisting with grants and funding

Collaborating to secure funding

Developing performance measures

Other

# of States

Type

of I

nter

nal A

ctiv

ity

Figure 4: Does the Mobility Management network conduct any of the following internal activities in its ongoing work? (Select all that apply.)



In terms of other coordinating networks, 12 of the 14 networks indicated that they are aware of

the Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility (CCAM). In terms of how their network’s work

aligns with CCAM or other state-level coordination work, four respondents said their work is

“very similar,” four said their work is “somewhat similar,” one said their work is “not similar at

all,” and one indicated that they were “not sure.”

With regards to direct support for riders, respondents indicated a limited amount of activity

mainly concentrated on training (for travel, advocacy, or other purposes), creating

opportunities for person-to-person exchange, and providing access to state programs. North

Carolina and Rhode Island provide no direct support services to riders; Arizona and

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Conducting training and professional development forother mobility professionals

Hosting Events, including state transit associationconferences or meetings

Developing policy, advocating, or lobbying for improvedmobility management and/or accessible transportation

Identifying transportation needs and offering options forimproved services

Supporting or coordinating partnerships to providetechnology (mobile applications, etc.), information, or

services

Providing programmatic support for Section 5310 and/or5311 programs

Developing informational materials or products to informothers

Other

# of States

Type

of E

xter

nal A

ctiv

ity

Figure 5: Does the Mobility Management network conduct any of the following external activities in its ongoing work? (Select all that apply.)


Massachusetts are unsure if any riders receive direct services through the network. Only Ohio

provided an estimate of number of riders served per month: 7,567.

Challenges and Successes

The challenges facing these mobility management networks fall under four main areas:

coordination at various geographic levels, taking into account the different needs of rural

versus urban riders; securing adequate funding and ensuring that funders perceive that their

dollars are well spent; conveying the value of the network by measuring outcomes; and

onboarding and training of mobility management professionals. While respondents admitted

that addressing these challenges was an ongoing effort, they did offer a few solutions to

specific concerns.

In Iowa, the network has been operational for nearly a decade but has been tracking

performance measures for only 18 months or so. They hope to be able to begin to analyze

those measures in order to demonstrate the network’s worth to the community. In Ohio,

county-to-county travel has proved an impediment to coordinating at a regional level. As a

result, the network has set a state-level goal of building regional “teams” of mobility managers

to prioritize and address challenges as they occur. That network is also working to build a

virtual catalog of high-quality training materials for new mobility managers and has instituted a

mentor program that pairs up seasoned mobility managers with new ones. In North Carolina,

the network was struggling to promote itself and recruit new members. As a solution to that

challenge, NC MOVE joined the North Carolina Public Transportation Association (NCPTA) so

that the network could operate as an NCPTA peer group while still accepting members not

affiliated with NCPTA. As part of its membership benefits, NCPTA distributes information about

NC MOVE to over 400 NCPTA members and provides limited financial support to the network.

“The network is working to improve transportation services available to community members by advocating to providers and local

government, addressing gaps in service and planning for future goals.”


When asked how their network has achieved success, the most common response mentions

some form of improving communication and collaboration among internal teams and with

external partners. Growth in membership and increased visibility of the network are also cited

as markers of success. Access to statewide resources is key: in Ohio, the network has

established alliances with the Department of Developmental Disabilities and the Senior Corps’

RSVP program, overseen by the Corporation for National and Community Service in order to

advocate for those agencies’ local efforts when possible. In Nevada, members of the network

are collaborating in order to identify coverage gaps and determine how to fill them. Iowa has

transformed a grassroots initiative into a mature network and credits the ongoing support of

the state DOT for helping the network achieve success: “Of those communities being served by

mobility managers, we can systematically prove that the community has a greater acceptance

of public transit, and stronger knowledge of services available. As compared to transit systems

[in Iowa] without mobility management, we are constantly out in the community and creating

new services that the community needs.”

“We are talking on a regular basis, sharing data, and looking for success stories elsewhere that we can leverage.”


CONCLUSIONS

Strong political backing is necessary as evidenced by the fact that most networks were brought

into existence with legislative action, with the network being led by the respective state DOTs.

The sustainability of the networks seems to be contingent on the availability of federal funds

(5310 or other formula program funds) or some other dedicated source of funding. Where

existing, the networks are of considerable size in terms of the number of participants with

many respondents indicating that their networks consist of greater than 10 participants.

Agencies such as Aging and Disability, RTAP, and other 5310 grantees were listed as being

affiliates to the mobility management networks.

The network managers responded that they would like to share “success stories” of mobility

networks to other states and agencies so that there is continuous learning that benefits all.

With this in mind, the performance of the network participants are measured through frequent

reporting, ridership tracking, and population groups catered to. Apart from these reporting and

tracking mechanisms, the respondents also indicated that they offered frequent training and

webinars, etc. These findings are indicative of the interest and desire on the part of the

network managers to propagate information and learn from others. While the electronic

survey has resulted in some interesting findings, it has also sparked the need to understand the

network management in a much more in-depth manner. With this in mind, the research team is

intending to conduct telephone interviews with the network managers to glean more

understanding of the functioning of these mobility networks that can be used to share best

practices with everyone.


NEXT STEPS

For phase two of this project, the research team will be conducting phone interviews with those

states that have indicated the presence of a statewide mobility management program. One

goal of these interviews is to further understand the issues and challenges facing the networks,

and determine what resources coordinators need in order to continue to improve service

delivery across their state networks.

Combined, the web surveys and phone interviews will help the research team generate

materials that will help to improve guidance for those states without statewide networks that

are looking to implement mobility management at that level. These states may already have

local or regional mobility management programs in place, or they may be administering

programs that serve specific populations (rural, veterans, etc.) but be looking to expand their

coordination to encompass a broader ridership base. Regardless of the size or scope of the

program, we believe that the research collected and analyzed via the survey and interviews will

have broad applicability to the field of mobility management as a whole.


APPENDIX A Web-based Survey You were identified as a leader in Mobility Management (definition pop-up) in your state. Your responses to this survey will contribute to understanding the state of the practice, and will assist those interested in implementing mobility management.

1. Please select the state or territory you work in... (dropdown) 2. Does your state have a Mobility Management network? A Mobility Management

Network is comprised of the agencies, organizations, and/or participants who lead efforts to improve integration across mobility options.

a. Yes – Continue b. No – Link to NCMM to learn more c. I do not know; If so, Please forward the survey to whoever will be the

appropriate individual to respond to this survey. Thanks. 3. What is the geographic scale of the network?

a. Large Urban (> 200,000) b. Small Urban (50,000 to 200,000) c. Rural (< 50,000) d. Other: _______

4. What is the name of this network, if any? 5. Which agency leads the network? 6. What is the public website for this network, if any? 7. What is the legal or regulatory authority for establishing this network, if any?

a. Executive Order b. Legislation c. Other: _______

8. Does your mobility management network have a mission and strategic plan? Please describe.

9. How is the network funded? Select all that apply. a. State Department of Transportation (DOT) funds b. Non-DOT state funds c. Federal funds through the State DOT; please identify the funding

source:___________ d. Network members and their organizations support themselves e. Other:___________

10. How many organizations and/or agencies participate in the network? a. Less than 5 b. Between 5 and 10 c. Greater than 10

11. Are your mobility management network members also part of other state networks such as:

a. National Rural Transit Assistance Program b. 5310 grantee network c. Aging and Disability Resource Network


d. AAA Network e. Other, please explain:___________

12. Do you measure the performance of individual Mobility Management professionals who participate in the network?

a. Yes b. No

13. (If #12 Yes) Please describe the metrics and methods used to measure individual performance.

14. Do you measure the performance of the network as a whole? a. Yes b. No

15. (If #14 Yes) Please describe the metrics and methods used to measure network performance.

16. Does the Mobility Management network conduct any of the following internal activities in its ongoing work?

a. Holding internal meetings, calls, and/or webinars b. Conducting training and/or professional development for staff or network

participants c. Holding network-only events d. Providing technical assistance within the network e. Providing or assisting with grants and funding f. Collaborating to secure funding g. Developing performance measures h. Other: _______

17. How frequently do the internal activities happen? a. Once a week b. Once every two weeks c. Once a month d. Once a quarter e. Once a year or greater

18. Does the Mobility Management network conduct any of the following external activities in its ongoing work?

a. Conducting training and professional development for other mobility professionals

b. Hosting Events, including state transit association conferences or meetings c. Developing policy, advocating, or lobbying for improved mobility management

and/or accessible transportation d. Identifying transportation needs and offering options for improved services e. Supporting or coordinating partnerships to provide technology (mobile

applications, etc.), information, or services f. Providing programmatic support for Section 5310 and/or 5311 programs g. Developing informational materials or products to inform others h. Other: _______

19. How frequently do the external activities happen?


a. Once a week b. Once every two weeks c. Once a month d. Once a quarter e. Once a year or greater

20. Which of the following tools does the network use to communicate? a. Website/Online Forum b. Email group (Google Group, listserv) c. In-person meetings d. Conference Call e. Other: _______

21. Are you aware of the Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility? (a) Yes (b) No 22. (If #21 yes), how does your Mobility Management network goals align with the

Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility (CCAM) efforts? Please explain. a. Not similar at all: _______ b. Somewhat similar: _______ c. Very similar: _______ d. Not sure: _______

23. Does the Mobility Management network provide any of the following support services directly to riders?

a. Training (Travel, Advocacy, or other) b. Funding c. Opportunities for person-to-person exchange d. Access to state programs e. Other: _______ f. Not sure

24. How many riders per month are served by the network? 25. What challenges has the network faced? What were the solutions to these challenges? 26. How has the network achieved success?


REFERENCES A. Vishwanath, H. S. Gan, S. Kalyanaraman, S. Winter, & I. Mareels. (2015). Personalized public

transportation: A mobility model and its application to Melbourne. IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine, 7(4), 37-48. doi:10.1109/MITS.2015.2474975

American Public Transportation Association. (2012). Mobility Management Customer-Focused Public Transportation [Brochure].

Bascom, G. W., & Christensen, K. M. (2017). The impacts of limited transportation access on persons with disabilities' social participation. Journal of Transport & Health, 7(B), 227-234. doi:10.1016/j.jth.2017.10.002

Bezyak, J. L., Sabella, S. A., & Gattis, R. H. (2017). Public transportation: An investigation of barriers for people with disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 28(1), 52-60. doi:10.1177/1044207317702070

Bond, M., Brown, J. R., & Wood, J. (2017). Adapting to challenge: examining older adult transportation in rural communities. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 5(4), 707–715. doi:10.1016/j.cstp.2017.07.004

Burkhardt, J., & Garrity, R. (2012). Sharing the costs of human services transportation. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (2277), 57-64. Retrieved from http://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/abs/10.3141/2277-07.

Burkhardt, J., & McLary, J. (n.d.). The business case for mobility management. Retrieved from https://www.apta.com/resources/mobility/Documents/Business-Case-for-Mobility-Management.pdf.

Clarke, P. J., Ailshire, J. A., Nieuwenhuijsen, E. R., & de Kleijn – de Vrankrijker, Marijke W. (2011). Participation among adults with disability: The role of the urban environment. Social Science & Medicine, 72(10), 1674-84. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.03.025

Clarke, P., Ailshire, J. A., & Lantz, P. (2009). Urban built environments and trajectories of mobility disability: Findings from a national sample of community-dwelling American adults (1986–2001). Social Science & Medicine, 69(6):964-70. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.06.041

Ellis, E. (2009). Mobility management. AARP Public Policy Institute. Washington, DC.

European Conference of Ministers of Transport. (2006). Improving access to public transport: Guidelines for transport personnel. Paris: ECMT Publications. doi:10.1787/9789282113295-en

Federal Transportation Administration. (2007). Mobility management. Washington, DC.

Federal Transportation Administration. (2007). United We Ride. Washington, DC.

Friedman, C., & Rizzolo, M. C. (2016). The state of transportation for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in Medicaid home and community-based services 1915(c)

http://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/abs/10.3141/2277-07

https://www.apta.com/resources/mobility/Documents/Business-Case-for-Mobility-Management.pdf

https://www.apta.com/resources/mobility/Documents/Business-Case-for-Mobility-Management.pdf


waivers. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 27(3), 168-177. doi:10.1177/1044207316644413

Haveman, M., Tillmann, V., Stöppler, R., Kvas, Š, & Monninger, D. (2013). Mobility and public transport use abilities of children and young adults with intellectual disabilities: Results from the 3-year Nordhorn public transportation intervention study. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 10(4), 289-299. doi:10.1111/jppi.12059

Jansuwan, S., Christensen, K. M., & Chen, A. (2013). Assessing the transportation needs of low-mobility individuals: Case study of a small urban community in Utah. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 139(2), 104-114. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000142

Jittrapirom, P., Caiati, V., Feneri, A., Ebrahimigharehbaghi, S., Alonso-González, M. J., & Narayan, J. (2017). Mobility as a service: a critical review of definition, assessments of schemes, and key challenges. Urban Planning, 2(2), 13-25. doi:10.17645/up.v2i2.931.

Job Access Reverse Commute / New Freedom / Section 5310. (n.d.). Regional Transportation Authority Mapping and Statistics (RTAMS). Retrieved from http://www.rtams.org/rtams/planningProgram.jsp?id=5

KFH Group, Inc. (2018). Successful Mobility Management Practices for Improving Transportation Services in Small Urban and Rural Areas. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 20-65(68). Retrieved from http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=4157.

Kostyniuk, L. P., R. M. St. Louis, N. Zanier, D. W. Eby, & L. J. Molnar (2012). Transportation, mobility, and older adults in rural Michigan. Lansing, MI: University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute Behavioral Sciences Group.

Kroeger, D., Andrle, S., & Hallock, P. (2005). Part 1: Planning: Coordination of Transit and School Busing in Iowa. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (1927), 1-10. doi:10.3141/1927-01

Majumdar, S. R., Sen, L., Highsmith, M. K., & Cherrington, L. (2013). The case of performance measurement in mobility management programs. Public Performance & Management Review, 37(2), 280-301. doi:10.2753/PMR1530-9576370205

Majumdar, S. R., Sen, L., & Park, S. (2013). The feasibility of mobility management in the United States. Public Works Management & Policy, 18(3), 263-278. doi:10.1177/1087724X12469795

Martens, K. (2018). Ageing, impairments and travel: Priority setting for an inclusive transport system. Paper presented at the 92th Annual Meeting Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.

Mattson, J., Miller, J., Goodwill, J., Sriraj, P.S., & Hough, J. (2017). Impacts of mobility management and human service transportation coordination efforts and end-user quality of life. Journal of the Transportation Research Forum 56(1), 77-92.

http://www.rtams.org/rtams/planningProgram.jsp?id=5

http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=4157


Myers, A., & Ravesloot, C. (2016). Navigating time and space: How Americans with disabilities use time and transportation. Community Development, 47(1), 75-90. doi:10.1080/15575330.2015.1111399

Nathalie P. Voorhees Center for Neighborhood and Community Improvement (2014). Planning Transportation to Meet the Needs of an Aging Illinois: An Assessment. Chicago, IL.

Page, S. (2016). A strategic framework for building civic capacity. Urban Affairs Review, 52(4), 439-470. doi:10.1177/1078087415596848

Pucher, J., & Renne, J. (2005). Rural mobility and mode choice: Evidence from the 2001 national household travel survey. Transportation, 32(2), 165–186. doi:10.1007/s11116-004-5508-3

Rodman, W., Berez, D., & Moser, S. (2016). The national mobility management initiative: state DOTs connecting specialized transportation users and rides. NCHRP 20-65(60)

Rall, J., & Myers, A. (2015). State Human Service Transportation Coordinating Councils: An Overview and State Profiles. National Conference of State Legislatures.

Sarawut, J., Christensen, K. M., & Anthony, C. (2013). Assessing the transportation needs of low-mobility individuals: Case study of a small urban community in Utah. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 139(2), 104-114. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000142

Schlossberg, M. (2004). Coordination as a strategy for serving the transportation disadvantaged: a comparative framework of local and state roles. Public Works Management & Policy, 9(2), 132-144. doi:10.1177/1087724X04268562

Sriraj, P. S., Dirks, L., & Singh, H. (2010). Developing an information management system for public and specialized transportation providers of Illinois: A web-based, interactive system. Transportation Research Record, 2145(1), 91-99. doi:10.3141/2145-11

Stati Uniti d'America. (1993). Accessible transportation and mobility. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Sylvestre, G., Gaudry, L., & Christopher, G. (2007). Mobility options for the aging population of Manitoba: an action plan for regional solutions. Winnipeg, MB: The Institute of Urban Studies.

Sze, N. N., & Christensen, K. M. (2017). Access to urban transportation system for individuals with disabilities. IATSS Research, 41(2), 66-73. doi:10.1016/j.iatssr.2017.05.002

U.S. Dept. of Transportation (2002). 2002 National Transportation Availability and Use Survey. Washington, DC: Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

U.S. Dept. of Transportation (2011). Technological innovations in transportation for people with disabilities: Workshop summary report, February 23, 2011. Washington, D.C.

United States. Congress. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (2014). The Americans with Disabilities Act and accessible transportation: Challenges and opportunities: Hearing of the committee on health, education, labor, and pensions, united


states senate, one hundred twelfth congress, first session, November 17, 2011. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transit, Local Roads, Railroads and Harbors. (2015). Mobility management practices in Wisconsin. Retrieved from http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/doing-bus/local-gov/astnce-pgms/transit/mob-prac.pdf.

Wood, J., Brown, J.R., Bond, M., & Suguri, V. (2016). Older adult transportation in rural communities: results of an agency survey. Journal of Public Transportation, 19(2), 154-167.

http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/doing-bus/local-gov/astnce-pgms/transit/mob-prac.pdf

http://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/doing-bus/local-gov/astnce-pgms/transit/mob-prac.pdf


The National Center for Mobility Management (NCMM; www.nationalcenterformobilitymanagement.org) is a national technical assistance center created to facilitate communities in adopting mobility management strategies. The NCMM is funded through a cooperative agreement with the Federal Transit Administration, and is operated through a consortium of three national organizations – the American Public Transportation Association, the Community Transportation Association of America, and Easterseals. Content in this document is disseminated by NCMM in the interest of information exchange. Neither the NCMM nor the U.S. DOT, FTA assumes liability for its contents or use.